Advertisement

The sky is not falling because of Supreme Court ruling

First Nations people concerned with the recent Supreme Court ruling that the Government of Canada does not need to consult Indigenous groups when making laws need to calm down and take a deep breath.

The sky is not falling.

For those who might not be aware, Alberta's Mikisew Cree Nation filed a lawsuit in 2013 that the former Conservative government should have consulted with them on any changes to Canada's environmental laws.

The Mikisew Cree challenged failed with the court ruling against their challenge but the reasons for the decision did not dismiss Indigenous inherent and treaty rights nor does it any way abrogate the duty to consult and accommodate.

So, let me emphasize that nothing has changed.

And for those who have been railing against the imposition of the duty to consult, with many avoiding the second part that is the duty to accommodate, this is not the time to celebrate.

The Crown duty to Consult and Accommodate on either resource projects that could negatively affect Indigenous inherent or treaty rights still exists. And any law that infringes on Indigenous or treaty rights can still be challenged in a court of law.

In fact, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis in a written statement on the decision emphasized that the finding does not absolve the Crown of its duty to act honourably toward Indigenous Peoples or limit the relevance of constitutional protections.

I've also noticed that right wing spin that decisions have been all over the place in resource rulings across the country that no one knows where anything stands in relations to resource projects and the duty to consult and accommodate.

That misguided notion couldn't be further from the truth especially in light of ruling after ruling that has set out the levels of consultation and accommodation.

First Nations Voice contributor Bill Gallagher has racked up the legal winning record of Indigenous people at 269. Yes, that's two hundred and sixty nine wins in the resource sector.

For anyone to suggest that there is not a clear pattern or precedence being set has either never read any of the decisions or is a paid lobbyist working for a think tank.

Now, I am willing to change my mind about this decision being bad for Indigenous interests. However, that will come when I read a decision that cites this case as a reason for denying the Indigenous side of the argument